Opinions on LEGO Technic Theme

[dr_spock]

If you have lived long enough, you'll notice cycles and patterns.  What's old is new again. 

For me the B model doesn't matter that much.  I stopped building the B model after TLG stopping printing the books for the B models.

 

[pleegwat]

When was a kid, I've always kept the technic sets separate from the city ones and rarely cross-pollinated. Though some part of that may have been that my brother and me did not keep our system/city collections separate, I really never felt a need to combine the two in one model.

[icm]

I was never much into Technic as a kid and I still don't look forward to each year's new Technic sets as much as I do to those of other lines, because the most interesting Technic kits are so large, but here are my two cents on studded versus studless Technic: - 

Studless Technic is great.  You can do much more with it than was ever possible with studded Technic.

Studded Technic was fine in its time, but the marriage between the vertical columns needed for Technic structures and the irregular grid of System was always awkward, and it resulted in some structures that were terrifically hard to put together and equally hard to take apart.  I'm glad the Technic line has moved beyond studded structures.

But - 

Studded Technic never really went away at all!  Instead, it became a vital component of large System structures.  The strength and rigidity of modern System structures, enabled by studded Technic, is fantastic compared to the larger System builds when I was a kid.  Also, studded Technic was just beginning to be used for play features in System models when I was a kid - for instance, I was absolutely blown away by the wing jack mechanism in 4502 X-wing Fighter, back in 2004.  Now it's fairly common for System models to have fantastic Technic-enabled mechanical play features, and also to have incredibly strong Technic-enabled infrastructures.

I don't know enough about mechanisms to have a strong opinion on how clever, complex, or uninspired the mechanisms of today's larger Technic models are, compared to the large Technic models of past decades, and I don't pay enough attention to the B models to have a strong opinion about those either.  From my perspective as someone primarily interested in System, today's Technic line looks just as good as it ever has, and today's studded Technic is better than ever because it's now being used for what it does best: integrating functions into studded (System) models.

[aol000xw]

New sets look good, there is attention to detail here and there, and there are somewhat bigger ones than usual available. All of that is good and nice to have, and so weaker B-Models are an acceptable collateral .

But at the same time at the very least sets over 200€ can't be weak technically, flawed functions on such a price are a show stopper..

 

 

 

[Jim]

1 minute ago, icm said:

...

From my perspective as someone primarily interested in System, today's Technic line looks just as good as it ever has, and today's studded Technic is better than ever because it's now being used for what it does best: integrating functions into studded (System) models.

True! There are lots of applications for studded Technic in "System" sets. I build a lot of Star Wars and Technic is very common in these models.

[TeamThrifty]

...if this was a vote, it feels about 75% 'Yes, they're doing a good job'.. i've not counted, so could be wrong. Just gut feeling.

[Erik Leppen]

I have no problem with the Technic theme as a whole or how it would be declining or whatever, but I do complain when a set says "2 in 1" yet appear to be more like "1.2 in 1". And since the discussion came about when 42082's B model was presented, it looks like that's what more people oppose.

And this seems to be more common recently than in the studded era (even the Claas lacks a proper B). I can't remember many studded sets that didn't have a full alternative, besides the power puller.

I do agree though, that sets are sometimes getting unwieldily large. A set should be as large as needed to incorporate the functions kids would reasonably expect such model to have, and not larger. 42070 is too large, and feels rushed as a result. 42069 is too large, and has too many parts as a result. I think 42082 is also too large, but what that does to quality remains to be seen.

The Arocs's (42043) size feels justified because it's a very complex model. After that, the too-large sets began to emerge. I think the only really large set whose size is actually justified, is the BWE 42055. I think that one just needed the size to work as it did. All the other huge models, not so much. The Porsche and Chiron are arguably not even Technic, despite their intricated gearboxes. They are sets focusing on their looks, and studless is not suitable for sets focused on looks. I am still confident that a Porsche and Chiron would work much better as creator 1:17 cars like the F40, Mini, Beetle and Caterham. I'd much rather see a well-built studded Porsche or Chiron of, say, 1300 parts for €130, and I would expect car lovers not specially into Lego to prefer that too. System builds are just much more recognizable as Lego to a non-Lego-fan; also the smaller size make much better display pieces to put in a living room instead of in a glass case. And Technic lovers probably wouldn't have missed the two supercars if they weren't there.

[1gor]

We have to be realistic and accept that if we want great B - model (like 42078 set) we have to accept that there will be lot of left over parts. IMHO 42078 B - model is more intetesting than A - model and 42081 B - model is quite nice and interesting.

About using Technic bricks in other themes; old classic space used them as well as bricks with pins to connect segments of space ship or other vehicle...

[ginger-snapped]

I think the Technic Theme is really coming into its own and had really shown some big improvements in recent times. The sets look a lot better and more realistic, especially with the introduction of teaming up with Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen (for the Porsche 911 and Bugatti Chiron). The B-models have appeared lackadaisical at times and some of the functions have not been perfect, but I have been really impressed with those functions for their complexity as the Technic theme begins to really branch out. I agree with @Erik Leppen that some of the models like 42070 were too large and needed a bit more work. However, I think we need to remember that all LEGOs sets are designed for children (except maybe for the Porsche and Chiron) who probably don't care as much about what the B-model is or whether it looks too much like A-model. TLG designs to give children a fun building experience as well as fun playing with the sets afterwards. I am happy with what the Technic sets have been (for the most part), and I can't wait to see what they come up with next.

[agrof]

I am with @Erik Leppen. I am one who tends to complain more, than praise recently, but this goes for certain models - and especially about the quality.

I believe the "problem" is, that  TLG seemingly deleted the price tag limit, and shoots for market ceiling. This is understandable from company pont of view, but bad for design. Speaking of flagship models: designers are less bounded to budget, which brings lazyness, as You can rather easily pick 30 pcs more (also could be a target to raise the PCS tag year to year), than think twice about solving the same functions with more smart solutions with less piece count. This is the spirit what I miss in models like 42082 and Porsche + Chiron (even if I consider those a bit borderline sets). So I think releasing the leash is no good for Technic, and either for creativity in general.

8043 and 42043 (note the Nr 43 in both) are perfect flagships for me in every aspect: functions, solutions, realism AND reasonable prices.

Edited June 18, 2018 by agrof

[Alex Ilea]

I will say this: i love technic theme! Tbh, as others, I don't care about b models and I think that is you are not happy with it, build your own! This evolution of technic is a pozitive one (parts wise) but color wise i quite hate it. I mean, I like the variaety, but they just jem pack the inside of sets with colors and i don't like that. In this aspect i prefere old sets. But the new ones do have some nice features I must say.

Other than that I would say I am not as excited for sets as I was a few years ago, In 2015 I was buying a set every month and not I only bought 1 in 2018. 

That is all from me folks :) 

[Lipko]

2 hours ago, Bublehead said:

There will always be an unhappy vocal minority who think that the Lego Group doesn’t know what they’re doing

Don't forget, that they almost went bankrupt not so long ago. Or something. honestly, I didn't look it up. And also big themes disappeared in the past.

Anyhoo, back on topic: I'm pretty happy that the parts are evolving, I'm okay with the rules they set (color vomit, etc) and I follow them.

I'm not that happy with the sets though. And I know, I should design it for myself or shut up, but I also like casual building, which is building sets. Building MOCs is anything but casual, since they are expensive, parts are hassle to collect, and most instructions I saw are not so high quality to say the least. So yep, I would be happy with better sets and proper B models from designers who's main job is designing sets and B models.

[allanp]

I think overall the Technic theme is doing ok. There are things ide do different but the fact that it's still around and doing very well is a blessing to be thankful for. How many of its legitimate competitors are filling store shelves? Look at Meccano, it's a mere shadow of its former self. Look at all the other toys being replaced by smart phones and social media. And yet Technic still remains and far from being dumbed down they are as complex as ever in recent years. Of course I'de like to see a return of universal sets, motors without internal gear reduction, studded chassis, tasteful colour coding, the flex system and so on, but one thing that has been missing that has hopefully returned with sets like the Arocs, BWE and the Chiron is the need to improve in what's been done already. That great to see. However, although we have sets like the Chiron now, people will always look back at 8880 with fondness not because of nostalgia or any technical superiority it may have, but because of the huge leap forward that it was at the time. But like I say Technic is still around and doing great, so they must be doing something right! But something is bothersome and that's the quality! Not the quality of the parts, they are still great, it's the design. I've mentioned the steering of the Chiron compared to 8880 before but it proves my point I think. Like the Chiron the front axle of 8880 had drive, suspension and steering, but the front axle of 8880 also had a much better steering angle due to the bigger CV joints, the front wheels where less wobbly and the steering just felt much more solid, well built and generally much better due to the larger steering arms with Ackerman. The suspension was way too firm, but at least it worked. Sure the front axle of the Chiron has the same functions, but it feels as if they are just happy to have the functions without the quality or though put into it that it deserves for the asking price. It has steering but the angle is poor and it feels cheap, like it's going to break, everything is loose and just not sturdy or well engineered. Turning the hand of God wheel on 8880, it turns with ease, turning all four wheels solidly to big angles, it feels like quality. In comparison turning the steering wheel of the Porsche or Chiron feels like the steering wheel is connected to the front wheels via a wet noodle! Add to that decline in mechanical quality the fact that 8880 brought the first implementation of a driven, suspended and steered axle makes it's high quality feel all the more impressive because usually such technological advances start out a bit ropey and get perfected over time. Having said all that, I must, and do, remain thankful that Technic is not only still here, but judging by their numerous new releases each year, numerous new parts released every year and ever increasing part counts, Technic seems to be doing as well as ever. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by allanp

[Mylenium]

49 minutes ago, agrof said:

designers are less bounded to budget, which brings lazyness.

It's probably the other way around: Quotas have to be met in terms of the model's construction, number of parts and their types, so a set can be sold at a predetermined price. At least that's how I see it or else total duds selling at outrageous prices like 42070 couldn't be explained. And from my interactions with LEGO's support and in part some people who seem to be connected to the design teams I get the impression that they are very locked into a specific way of thinking. It probably makes all sense to them, but as a customer some decisions are hard to understand.

Mylenium

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 minute ago, Mylenium said:

It's probably the other way around: Quotas have to be met in terms of the model's construction, number of parts and their types, so a set can be sold at a predetermined price. At least that's how I see it or else total duds selling at outrageous prices like 42070 couldn't be explained. And from my interactions with LEGO's support and in part some people who seem to be connected to the design teams I get the impression that they are very locked into a specific way of thinking. It probably makes all sense to them, but as a customer some decisions are hard to understand.

Mylenium

Well put. Although I recently got in touch with TLG about what the 42070 (yes, that dud) B-model was supposed to be, and they had no idea; the guy said it might be some kind of space rover.  Not sure as to how much of a handle they have on the matter... 

Oh, and the downloadable instruction manual thing. Aaarrrrrgggghhh. 

[agrof]

33 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

It's probably the other way around: Quotas have to be met in terms of the model's construction, number of parts and their types, so a set can be sold at a predetermined price. At least that's how I see it or else total duds selling at outrageous prices like 42070 couldn't be explained. And from my interactions with LEGO's support and in part some people who seem to be connected to the design teams I get the impression that they are very locked into a specific way of thinking. It probably makes all sense to them, but as a customer some decisions are hard to understand.

Mylenium

In my job I am also bounded to "design to cost", so I have some clue about what You are writing about. Though, please note, that I put it into a context: Speaking of flagships...

Yes, there are sets, which do need to match these limitations, but for flagships it seems the only goal is to make it bigger and bigger for no good reason - only for money and profit. Which is not Technic to me. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by agrof
added content

[BrickbyBrickTechnic]

1 hour ago, agrof said:

(note the Nr 43 in both)

You should love every set in the 43XXX series 

[trekman]

Reading over everyone's views, I have little to add, but that it is the new features and parts which keep me coming back for more.  Longer pneumatic cylinders, curved gear racks from BWE and the newer Class Xerion tyres all keep me interested.  Lego technic is always improving in its parts inventories.  However as has been pointed out, the quality of the steering geometries and heavy steering, with Unimog and Chiron are the let down.  On the whole things are looking good, and over the past ten years I have reared up a few more fans, which can't be bad!

[Maaboo the Witch]

16 minutes ago, trekman said:

Reading over everyone's views, I have little to add, but that it is the new features and parts which keep me coming back for more.  Longer pneumatic cylinders, curved gear racks from BWE and the newer Class Xerion tyres all keep me interested.  Lego technic is always improving in its parts inventories.  However as has been pointed out, the quality of the steering geometries and heavy steering, with Unimog and Chiron are the let down.  On the whole things are looking good, and over the past ten years I have reared up a few more fans, which can't be bad!

I can't believe how much the theme has evolved over the five short years I've spent with it. You can't help but wonder what's next... sometimes I have trouble staying in the present, there's so much to look forward to! 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Maaboo35
That's not what full stops are for!

[Didumos69]

I don't care about sets, I love the Technic theme for it's parts only, especially the basic parts. They're brilliant. Only atoms are more versatile (cited freely from @Blakbird).

[zux]

3 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

I am still confident that a Porsche and Chiron would work much better as creator 1:17 cars like the F40, Mini, Beetle and Caterham. I'd much rather see a well-built studded Porsche or Chiron of, say, 1300 parts for €130, and I would expect car lovers not specially into Lego to prefer that too. System builds are just much more recognizable as Lego to a non-Lego-fan; also the smaller size make much better display pieces to put in a living room instead of in a glass case. And Technic lovers probably wouldn't have missed the two supercars if they weren't there.

This. I think the reason behind the love and hate are simply money. Sets are getting bigger, with larger piece counts, which means the price is rising too. Remember when flagship sets cost about 200 euro or less? These have the same functions we are offered with newer sets. You still get new parts with smaller flagships. B-model is also available. And it didn't require instructions weighting 1.5 Kg to build a single model. 

While I really like some new parts than could have been only introduced with the size of Porsche and Chiron, I think these would do good as well if they were smaller.

[jorgeopesi]

I see that people think that Technic is better because has more realistic appearance but for me would be like say that Creator is better because has better functions, both would be better but both would lose their essence. With each unnecessary piece a Technic set loses efficiency and playability in fact the set that I like most this year is the forklift despite its little travel. Lego thinks big set walk or not walk when it must be the good set if brief twice good.

3 hours ago, icm said:

Also, studded Technic was just beginning to be used for play features in System models when I was a kid - for instance, I was absolutely blown away by the wing jack mechanism in 4502 X-wing Fighter, back in 2004.

Good mechanism I always like to see them in the no Technic sets.

[Bublehead]

What I always enjoyed in the Technic line was that the build techniques advanced from year to year, that the designers were learning the secrets and sharing them with us.  Now, the theme has matured and the new techniques tend to be more along the lines of how do we make it LOOK more realistic, rather than how do we make it WORK more realistically.  This includes colors, complexity of function, and modeling of real world vehicles ( like cars, i.e. the Chiron and 911).  What I would like to see in this theme is a departure from the norms they have established.  To explore untapped machine designs.  Branch out into Technic versions of system sets (like I tried to do with a portable, automated amusement ride MOC) or building machines that are not just rehashes of other attempts.  We have had enough cute robots and simple to use programmable bricks.  We have had enough cranes and construction equipment, we are now getting a slew of logging equipment and updates to excavators making them driverless, or remote controlled.  The Mack container truck was a good model, and a vehicle they have never modeled before. The B Model was the best garbage truck to date.  

What about machines that that are not a vehicle? Seen many of those lately in the Technic line? ... BWE was a departure as was its B model.  Why not more “factory” type of machines like weaving machines, or mechanically  programmed difference engines, or Babbage machines.  Or how about clocks, or clockwork automata? 

Some of the most interesting machines that TLG used to show us in the catalogs and idea books were machines that were big enough to require a very large collection to build, and would require way more elements than most kids could ever dream of acquiring.  These were the fuel for my dreams and desires to buy more and more Technic Lego, not specifically a certain set (at least until they unveiled the 8880 and then that was EVERYONES dream at the time.) 

I think they need to start looking for more things to model besides what we have been seeing lately. We need more outside the box thinking that goes a little farther than ‘How about a sail boat? We will call it a racing yacht so it sounds better, and put tiny print on the bottom of the box that says  “Not a floating toy”’

my $0.02

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Bublehead
Typo

[dr_spock]

4 hours ago, Jim said:

True! There are lots of applications for studded Technic in "System" sets. I build a lot of Star Wars and Technic is very common in these models.

Technic pieces are also common in Friends sets.  They provide functions like working garage doors (open the blast door), ski lift, etc.  13L flex axles even comes in dark pink now. 

 

 

 

[blondasek]

What I see as the problem here is that we have bigger sets with the same amount of functions/same functions in weird colours theme another year. Since 42043 there was no set which was at least complex as Mercedes. That crane is big, but is it better than 42009?

I enjoyed building Bugatti, it is a great, great model with a few awesome features, but it is not a model to play with.

I hope next year, with a new valves and gearbox rings we will see really complicated, but not so huge, flagship model which will be focused on functions. Backhoe loader on Class tires maybe?